No other site reviews and critiques news images as well as publishes original photography — all in the name of helping you become a sharper “visual consumer.” Are you bombarded by powerful images from the world of news, culture and social media? Sign up for our “Week in Re-View” and let us help unpack them for you. Other sites read the words. We read the pictures.

Email Address

Close

Reading The Pictures is dedicated to the analysis of news photos and media images.

October 23, 2005

Fact Follows Fiction Follows Spin Follows… Huh?

Although not at the top reaches of the day’s news cycle, here are a pair of pairs which manage to tie-in Democratic and presidential politics, Hollywood, and the editorial influence of the ever more prominent news/newswire entity.

Although I just noticed it last night, A.P. issued these two shots, back-to-back, on October 11th. Except for the first line, each have the identical caption.

The top shot leads off this way:

President Clinton and wife Hillary share a moment during an East Room ceremony at the White House on July 17, 1996.

The second shot begins like this:

This photo supplied by ABC shows Gena Davis in her role as Mackenzie Allen. who becomes president, takes time for a tender moment with her television husband played by Kyle Secor, in a scene from ABC’s ‘Commander in Chief.’

Then, both captions continue accordingly:

Those of a suspicious nature are thinking that ABC’s new hit ‘Commander in Chief’ is an effort by Hollywood lefties to hype Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House in 2008. Show creator Rod Lurie promises ‘that if there was no Hillary Clinton, there would still be a ‘Commander in Chief.”

So, here are a few of my questions:

1.) How do these people get away with that "those of a suspicious nature" straw man phrase?

2.) If there is as much antipathy toward Hillary on the left as I perceive, exactly who is the A.P. actually referring to? (And, why don’t they just name those F.O.B.’s?)

3.) What is it going to take for the media to stop trafficking in
right-wing stereotypes (such as the assumption that Hollywood is
dominated by leftists)? (Oh, or it it true?)

4.) Leaving the poor leftists out of it, how much is this program a not-so-disguised trailer for the Clinton sequel?

5.) Regarding the ever increasing "blurring of the lines"
between fact and fiction, how does one begin to break down what is real
and what is contrived justwithin the Clinton shot, not to mention the interrelation
between the two shots? Picking up just one idea regarding the latter,
is it possible the show anticipated a greater need to prepare for a
"First Hubby" Bill than a President Hil?